DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Response to Amendment
The following addresses applicant’s remarks/amendments 6 October 2025.
Claims 1 and 19-20 were amended; no claims were cancelled; no new claims were added; therefore, claims 1-20 are pending in current application and are addressed below.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6 October 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-20 have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to the specific combination of the references being used in the current rejection.
In response to applicant’s argument that references fail to show certain features of applicant’s invention, it is noted that features upon which applicant relies (i.e., “and the tapered optical waveguide has at least one boundary defined by a sinusoidal shape”) are not recited in the rejected claims in this combination. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). However, these claim limitations were not present in the previous independent claims and were presented by amendment on 6 October 2025. Therefore, the issue of whether Amili, Connolly, Maywar, Enderlein, and Hong addresses these limitations is not relevant. These amended claims containing new limitations have been addressed by Amili, Connolly, Maywar, Enderlein, and Huang in the present Office Action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-4, 6-7, 14, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Amili US 20210356588 A1 in view of Connolly US 20140072002 A1, Maywar (1998, “Low-power all-optical switching in active semiconductor chirped periodic structures”), Enderlein US 20210075191 A1, and Huang US 6567446 B1.
Regarding Claim 1, Amili teaches a light source configured to emit an optical signal (laser source 302, Fig. 3-8, [0033]), the light source comprising:
a seed laser configured to produce a seed optical signal (laser source 302, [0033]); and
a semiconductor optical amplifier (SOA) configured to amplify the seed optical signal to produce the emitted optical signal (SOA 304, Figs. 3-8, [0033]), wherein the SOA comprises:
Amili does not explicitly teach that the seed laser is a diode, and an optical waveguide extending along a longitudinal direction from an input end of the SOA to an output end of the SOA, wherein the optical waveguide is configured to guide and provide optical gain to the seed optical signal while the seed optical signal propagates in the longitudinal direction along the optical waveguide from the input end to the output end; and a Bragg grating disposed parallel to the optical waveguide, wherein the Bragg grating comprises a region of the SOA having a refractive index that varies along the longitudinal direction and the Bragg grating has different grating periods that change monotonically along the longitudinal direction and that provide a wavelength-selective optical gain within a particular wavelength range corresponding to a spectral linewidth that is less than or equal to 2 GHz, wherein the optical waveguide includes a tapered optical waveguide having a width that varies; and the tapered optical waveguide has at least one boundary defined by a sinusoidal shape.
Connolly teaches a seed laser diode ([0027])
Maywar teaches Bragg-grating SOAs with a Bragg grating disposed parallel to the waveguide and grating periods changing monotonically along the longitudinal direction (Fig. 3, Section 4) and greater optical gain for light inside particular wavelength ranges than outside of the ranges (Figs. 1, 3, Section 4).
Enderlein teaches a bragg grating with a spectral width less than 1 GHz ([0059]).
Additionally, seed laser diodes are well known in the art. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Amili such that the seed laser is a diode similar to Connolly with a reasonable expectation of success, and an optical waveguide extending along a longitudinal direction from an input end of the SOA to an output end of the SOA, wherein the optical waveguide is configured to guide and provide optical gain to the seed optical signal while the seed optical signal propagates in the longitudinal direction along the optical waveguide from the input end to the output end; and a Bragg grating disposed parallel to the optical waveguide, wherein the Bragg grating comprises a region of the SOA having a refractive index that varies along the longitudinal direction and the Bragg grating has different grating periods that change monotonically along the longitudinal direction and that provide a wavelength-selective optical gain within a particular wavelength range corresponding to a spectral linewidth similar to Maywar with a reasonable expectation of success with a spectral linewidth that is less than or equal to 2 GHz similar to Enderlein with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of amplifying the transmitted light in desired frequency bands.
Huang teaches a tapered optical waveguide with a width that varies according to a sinusoidal function (Abstract; Fig. 2, Col. 2 ln. 65 – Col. 3 ln. 15; examiner notes that Fig. 2 shows ends with different widths).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Amili such that the optical waveguide includes a tapered optical waveguide having a width that varies; and the tapered optical waveguide has at least one boundary defined by a sinusoidal shape similar to Huang with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of helping “broadening the spectral line with of light output from the device” (Huang: Abstract)
Regarding Claim 2, Amili as modified above teaches the light source of Claim 1,
Amili does not explicitly teach wherein the refractive index varies periodically along the longitudinal direction.
Maywar teaches periodic refractive index varying along the longitudinal direction (Figs. 1, 3; Section 1)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Amili such that the refractive index varies periodically along the longitudinal direction similar to Maywar with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of amplifying the transmitted light in desired frequency bands.
Regarding Claim 3, Amili as modified above teaches the light source of Claim 1,
Amili does not explicitly teach wherein the Bragg grating is configured to provide a distributed reflection of light within a particular wavelength range.
Maywar teaches distributed reflection of light within a particular wavelength range (Figs. 1, 3; Section 4)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Amili such that the Bragg grating is configured to provide a distributed reflection of light within a particular wavelength range similar to Maywar with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of amplifying the transmitted light in desired frequency bands.
Regarding Claim 4, Amili as modified above teaches the light source of Claim 1,
Amili does not explicitly teach wherein the Bragg grating is configured so that light within the particular wavelength range propagating along the optical waveguide receives greater optical gain from the optical waveguide than light outside of the particular wavelength range.
Maywar teaches greater optical gain for light inside particular wavelength ranges than outside of the ranges (Figs. 1, 3; Section 4)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Amili such that the Bragg grating is configured so that light within a particular wavelength range propagating along the optical waveguide receives greater optical gain from the optical waveguide than light outside of the particular wavelength range similar to Maywar with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of amplifying the transmitted light in desired frequency bands.
Regarding Claim 6, Amili as modified above teaches the light source of Claim 4, wherein: the emitted optical signal comprises pulses of light ([0008, 37]); and
Amili does not explicitly teach the particular wavelength range that receives greater optical gain from the optical waveguide corresponds to the spectral linewidth of the emitted pulses of light.
Maywar teaches greater optical gain for light inside particular wavelength ranges than outside of the ranges (Figs. 1, 3; Section 4).
Additionally, Amili teaches emitting the pulses of light from which travel from the SOA through front-end optics 316 and are transmitted to the environment (Figs. 3-9, [0033-56]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Amili such that the particular wavelength range that receives greater optical gain from the optical waveguide corresponds to a spectral linewidth of the emitted pulses of light similar to Maywar and Amili with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of amplifying the transmitted light in desired frequency bands.
Regarding Claim 7, Amili as modified above teaches the light source of Claim 1, wherein the light source is part of a lidar system (Abstract), the lidar system comprising:
a scanner configured to direct the emitted optical signal into a field of regard of the lidar system (front end optics 316 including scanner, [0039]);
a receiver configured to detect a portion of the emitted optical signal scattered by a target located a distance from the lidar system (front end optics 316 can be configured to receive the reflected optical signal, [0039]; balanced detector 308, [0036]); and
a processor configured to determine the distance from the lidar system to the target based on a round-trip time for the portion of the emitted optical signal to travel from the lidar system to the target and back to the lidar system (timing system 312 and processing circuitry 314 determines distance based on time of flight, [0038]).
Regarding Claim 19, Amili teaches a lidar system (Abstract) comprising:
a light source configured to emit an optical signal (laser source 302, Fig. 3-8, [0033]), the light source comprising:
a seed laser configured to produce a seed optical signal (laser source 302, [0033]); and
a semiconductor optical amplifier (SOA) configured to amplify the seed optical signal to produce the emitted optical signal (SOA 304, Figs. 3-8, [0033]),
a scanner configured to direct the emitted optical signal into a field of regard of the lidar system (front end optics 316 including scanner, [0039]);
a receiver configured to detect a portion of the emitted optical signal scattered by a target located a distance from the lidar system (front end optics 316 can be configured to receive the reflected optical signal, [0039]; balanced detector 308, [0036]); and
a processor configured to determine the distance from the lidar system to the target based on a round-trip time for the portion of the emitted optical signal to travel from the lidar system to the target and back to the lidar system (timing system 312 and processing circuitry 314 determines distance based on time of flight, [0038]).
Amili does not explicitly teach that the seed laser is a diode, and wherein the SOA comprises: an optical waveguide extending along a longitudinal direction from an input end of the SOA to an output end of the SOA, wherein the optical waveguide is configured to guide and provide optical gain to the seed optical signal while the seed optical signal propagates in the longitudinal direction along the optical waveguide from the input end to the output end; and a Bragg grating disposed parallel to the optical waveguide, wherein the Bragg grating comprises a region of the SOA having a refractive index that varies along the longitudinal direction and the Bragg grating has different grating periods that change monotonically along the longitudinal direction and that provide a wavelength-selective optical gain within a particular wavelength range corresponding to a spectral linewidth that is less than or equal to 2 GHz, wherein the optical waveguide includes a tapered optical waveguide having a width that varies; and the tapered optical waveguide has at least one boundary defined by a sinusoidal shape.
Connolly teaches a seed laser diode ([0027])
Maywar teaches Bragg-grating SOAs with a Bragg grating disposed parallel to the waveguide and grating periods changing monotonically along the longitudinal direction (Fig. 3, Section 4) and greater optical gain for light inside particular wavelength ranges than outside of the ranges (Figs. 1, 3, Section 4).
Enderlein teaches a bragg grating with a spectral width less than 1 GHz ([0059]).
Additionally, seed laser diodes are well known in the art. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Amili such that the seed laser is a diode similar to Connolly with a reasonable expectation of success, and an optical waveguide extending along a longitudinal direction from an input end of the SOA to an output end of the SOA, wherein the optical waveguide is configured to guide and provide optical gain to the seed optical signal while the seed optical signal propagates in the longitudinal direction along the optical waveguide from the input end to the output end; and a Bragg grating disposed parallel to the optical waveguide, wherein the Bragg grating comprises a region of the SOA having a refractive index that varies along the longitudinal direction and the Bragg grating has different grating periods that change monotonically along the longitudinal direction and that provide a wavelength-selective optical gain within a particular wavelength range corresponding to a spectral linewidth similar to Maywar with a reasonable expectation of success with a spectral linewidth that is less than or equal to 2 GHz similar to Enderlein with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of amplifying the transmitted light in desired frequency bands.
Huang teaches a tapered optical waveguide with a width that varies according to a sinusoidal function (Abstract; Fig. 2, Col. 2 ln. 65 – Col. 3 ln. 15; examiner notes that Fig. 2 shows ends with different widths).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Amili such that the optical waveguide includes a tapered optical waveguide having a width that varies; and the tapered optical waveguide has at least one boundary defined by a sinusoidal shape similar to Huang with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of helping “broadening the spectral line with of light output from the device” (Huang: Abstract)
Regarding Claim 20, Amili as modified above teaches a lidar system (Abstract) comprising:
a light source configured to emit (i) local-oscillator light and (ii) pulses of light, wherein each emitted pulse of light is coherent with a corresponding portion of the local-oscillator light (laser source 302 split into first (to SOA) and second (local oscillator) portions for coherent mixing, Figs. 3-8 [0032-34]), and wherein the light source comprises:
a seed laser configured to produce a seed optical signal and the local-oscillator light (laser source 302, Figs. 3-8 [0032-34]); and
a semiconductor optical amplifier (SOA) configured to amplify temporal portions of the seed optical signal to produce the emitted pulses of light, wherein each amplified temporal portion of the seed optical signal corresponds to one of the emitted pulses of light gain of SOA 304modulated through current injection from pulse generator, produces pulses of light SOA 304, Figs. 3-8, [0008, 33, 37]),
a receiver configured to detect the local-oscillator light and a received pulse of light, the received pulse of light comprising light from one of the emitted pulses of light that is scattered by a target located a distance from the lidar system (front end optics 316 can be configured to receive the reflected optical signal, [0039]; balanced detector 308, [0036]),
wherein the local-oscillator light and the received pulse of light are coherently mixed together at the receiver (coherently mixed in combiner 306, [0034]); and
a processor configured to determine the distance from the lidar system to the target based at least in part on a time-of-arrival for the received pulse of light (timing system 312 and processing circuitry 314 determines distance based on time of flight, [0038]).
Amili does not explicitly teach that the seed laser is a diode, and wherein the SOA comprises: an optical waveguide extending along a longitudinal direction from an input end of the SOA to an output end of the SOA, wherein the optical waveguide is configured to guide and provide optical gain to the seed optical signal while the seed optical signal propagates in the longitudinal direction along the optical waveguide from the input end to the output end; and a Bragg grating disposed parallel to the optical waveguide, wherein the Bragg grating comprises a region of the SOA having a refractive index that varies along the longitudinal direction and the Bragg grating has different grating periods that change monotonically along the longitudinal direction and that provide a wavelength-selective optical gain within a particular wavelength range corresponding to a spectral linewidth that is less than or equal to 2 GHz, wherein the optical waveguide includes a tapered optical waveguide having a width that varies; and the tapered optical waveguide has at least one boundary defined by a sinusoidal shape.
Connolly teaches a seed laser diode ([0027])
Maywar teaches Bragg-grating SOAs with a Bragg grating disposed parallel to the waveguide and grating periods changing monotonically along the longitudinal direction (Fig. 3, Section 4) and greater optical gain for light inside particular wavelength ranges than outside of the ranges (Figs. 1, 3, Section 4).
Enderlein teaches a bragg grating with a spectral width less than 1 GHz ([0059]).
Additionally, seed laser diodes are well known in the art. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Amili such that the seed laser is a diode similar to Connolly with a reasonable expectation of success, and an optical waveguide extending along a longitudinal direction from an input end of the SOA to an output end of the SOA, wherein the optical waveguide is configured to guide and provide optical gain to the seed optical signal while the seed optical signal propagates in the longitudinal direction along the optical waveguide from the input end to the output end; and a Bragg grating disposed parallel to the optical waveguide, wherein the Bragg grating comprises a region of the SOA having a refractive index that varies along the longitudinal direction and the Bragg grating has different grating periods that change monotonically along the longitudinal direction and that provide a wavelength-selective optical gain within a particular wavelength range corresponding to a spectral linewidth similar to Maywar with a reasonable expectation of success with a spectral linewidth that is less than or equal to 2 GHz similar to Enderlein with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of amplifying the transmitted light in desired frequency bands.
Huang teaches a tapered optical waveguide with a width that varies according to a sinusoidal function (Abstract; Fig. 2, Col. 2 ln. 65 – Col. 3 ln. 15; examiner notes that Fig. 2 shows ends with different widths).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Amili such that the optical waveguide includes a tapered optical waveguide having a width that varies; and the tapered optical waveguide has at least one boundary defined by a sinusoidal shape similar to Huang with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of helping “broadening the spectral line with of light output from the device” (Huang: Abstract)
Claim 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Amili US 20210356588 A1 in view of Connolly US 20140072002 A1, Maywar (1998, “Low-power all-optical switching in active semiconductor chirped periodic structures”), Enderlein US 20210075191 A1, and Huang US 6567446 B1 and further in view of Murison US 20100110535 A1.
Regarding Claim 5, Amili as modified above teaches the light source of Claim 4,
Amili does not explicitly teach wherein the particular wavelength range is centered at a wavelength of the seed optical signal and has a spectral width of less than 2 GHz.
Murison teaches a Bragg grating used as part of an optical amplifier with a center wavelength closely matched with the output of the seed source ([0051]).
Enderlein teaches a bragg grating with a spectral width less than 1 GHz ([0059]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Amili such that the particular wavelength range is centered at a wavelength of the seed optical signal similar to Murison and has a spectral width of less than 2 GHz similar to Enderlein with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of amplifying the transmitted light in desired frequency bands while helping prevent transmission of light outside the desired frequency bands.
Claims 8-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Amili US 20210356588 A1 in view of Connolly US 20140072002 A1, Maywar (1998, “Low-power all-optical switching in active semiconductor chirped periodic structures”), Enderlein US 20210075191 A1, and Huang US 6567446 B1 and further in view of Spencer US 20210311170 A1.
Regarding Claim 8, Amili as modified above teaches the light source of Claim 7,
Amili does not explicitly teach wherein a spectral width of the particular wavelength range corresponds to an electrical bandwidth of the receiver.
Spencer teaches emitted light and filtered received light with corresponding bandwidth ([0007, 24]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Amili such that a spectral width of the particular wavelength range corresponds to an electrical bandwidth of the receiver similar to Spencer with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of amplifying the transmitted light in desired frequency bands and minimizing noise by removing unwanted frequencies from the return signal.
Regarding Claim 9, Amili as modified above teaches the light source of Claim 8,
Amili does not explicitly teach wherein the spectral width of the particular wavelength range is less than 2 GHz and is approximately equal to the electrical bandwidth of the receiver.
Enderlein teaches a bragg grating with a spectral width less than 1 GHz ([0059]).
Spencer teaches emitted light and filtered received light with corresponding bandwidth ([0024]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Amili such that the spectral width of the particular wavelength range is less than 2 GHz similar to Enderlein and is approximately equal to the electrical bandwidth of the receiver similar to Spencer with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of amplifying the transmitted light in desired frequency bands and minimizing noise by removing unwanted frequencies from the return signal.
Regarding Claim 10, Amili as modified above teaches the light source of Claim 8,
Amili does not explicitly teach wherein the spectral width of the particular wavelength range is approximately 300 MHz, and the electrical bandwidth of the receiver is approximately 300 MHz.
Enderlein teaches a bragg grating with a spectral width less than 1 GHz ([0059]; 300 MHz is within Enderlein’s range, see MPEP 2144.05).
Spencer teaches emitted light and filtered received light with corresponding bandwidth ([0024]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Amili such that the spectral width of the particular wavelength range is approximately 300 MHz similar to Enderlein, and the electrical bandwidth of the receiver is approximately 300 MHz similar to Spencer with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of amplifying the transmitted light in desired frequency bands and minimizing noise by removing unwanted frequencies from the return signal.
Regarding Claim 11, Amili as modified above teaches the light source of Claim 7, wherein: the emitted optical signal comprises pulses of light ([0008, 37]).
Amili does not explicitly teach the spectral linewidth of the pulses of light corresponds to an electrical bandwidth of the receiver.
Spencer teaches emitted light and filtered received light with corresponding bandwidth ([0007, 24]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Amili such that the spectral linewidth of the pulses of light corresponds to an electrical bandwidth of the receiver similar to Spencer with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of amplifying the transmitted light in desired frequency bands and minimizing noise by removing unwanted frequencies from the return signal.
Regarding Claim 12, Amili as modified above teaches the light source of Claim 11,
Amili does not explicitly teach wherein the spectral linewidth of the pulses of light is less than 2 GHz and is approximately equal to the electrical bandwidth of the receiver.
Enderlein teaches a bragg grating with a spectral width less than 1 GHz ([0059]).
Spencer teaches emitted light and filtered received light with corresponding bandwidth ([0024]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Amili such the spectral linewidth of the pulses of light is less than 2 GHz similar to Enderlein and is approximately equal to the electrical bandwidth of the receiver similar to Spencer with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of amplifying the transmitted light in desired frequency bands and minimizing noise by removing unwanted frequencies from the return signal.
Regarding Claim 13, Amili as modified above teaches the light source of Claim 11,
Amili does not explicitly teach wherein the spectral linewidth of the pulses of light is approximately 300 MHz, and the electrical bandwidth of the receiver is approximately 300 MHz.
Enderlein teaches a bragg grating with a spectral width less than 1 GHz ([0059]; 300 MHz is within Enderlein’s range, see MPEP 2144.05).
Spencer teaches emitted light and filtered received light with corresponding bandwidth ([0024]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Amili such that the spectral linewidth of the pulses of light is approximately 300 MHz similar to Enderlein, and the electrical bandwidth of the receiver is approximately 300 MHz similar to Spencer with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of amplifying the transmitted light in desired frequency bands and minimizing noise by removing unwanted frequencies from the return signal.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Amili US 20210356588 A1 in view of Connolly US 20140072002 A1, Maywar (1998, “Low-power all-optical switching in active semiconductor chirped periodic structures”), Enderlein US 20210075191 A1, and Huang US 6567446 B1, and further in view of Hong 20200252133 A1.
Regarding Claim 14, Amili as modified above teaches the light source of Claim 1,
Amili does not explicitly teach wherein the width of the tapered optical waveguide increases from the input end to the output end.
Hong teaches a tapered optical waveguide in a SOA (Fig. 4, [0053])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Amili such that the optical waveguide is a tapered optical waveguide, wherein a width of the tapered optical waveguide increases from the input end to the output end similar to Hong with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of helping “increase the power of the modulated optical signal before the optical signal is output” (Hong: [0053]).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Amili US 20210356588 A1 in view of Connolly US 20140072002 A1, Maywar (1998, “Low-power all-optical switching in active semiconductor chirped periodic structures”), Enderlein US 20210075191 A1, and Huang US 6567446 B1, and further in view of Hughes US 20190154816 A1.
Regarding Claim 15, Amili as modified above teaches the light source of Claim 1, wherein the light source further comprises an electronic driver configured to:
the seed optical signal comprises light having a substantially constant optical power (unmodulated continuous wave signal, [0032, 33, 37]); and
supply pulses of electrical current to the SOA so that the emitted optical signal comprises pulses of light, wherein each pulse of current causes the SOA to amplify a temporal portion of the seed optical signal to produce one of the emitted pulses of light (gain of SOA modulated through current injection from pulse generator, produces pulses of light, [0033, 37]).
Amili does not explicitly teach supplying a substantially constant electrical current to the seed laser diode.
Hughes teaches driving a laser died with substantially constant DC current to produce CW light ([0135]).
Additionally, it is well known in the art to drive laser diodes at substantially constant currents to produce substantially constant optical power continuous wave light. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Amili such that supplying a substantially constant electrical current to the seed laser diode similar to Hughes with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of helping allow for the coherent mixing of local oscillator and reflected light.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Amili US 20210356588 A1 in view of Connolly US 20140072002 A1, Maywar (1998, “Low-power all-optical switching in active semiconductor chirped periodic structures”), Enderlein US 20210075191 A1, and Huang US 6567446 B1, and further in view of Krimmel US 5550667 A.
Regarding Claim 16, Amili as modified above teaches the light source of Claim 1,
Amili does not explicitly teach further comprising a fiber-optic amplifier configured to receive the emitted optical signal from the SOA and further amplify the emitted optical signal.
Krimmel teaches a fiber-optic amplifier (5) following a SOA (9) (Fig. 4, Col. 4, lns. 26-35 and Col. 5, lns. 21-42)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Amili to include a fiber-optic amplifier configured to receive the emitted optical signal from the SOA and further amplify the emitted optical signal similar to Krimmel with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of increasing the strength of the output signal to help better detect distant objects.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Amili US 20210356588 A1 in view of Connolly US 20140072002 A1, Maywar (1998, “Low-power all-optical switching in active semiconductor chirped periodic structures”), Enderlein US 20210075191 A1, and Huang US 6567446 B1, and further in view of OOI US 20200295529 A1.
Regarding Claim 17, Amili as modified above teaches the light source of Claim 1,
Amili does not explicitly teach wherein (i) the light source comprises a common anode, wherein an anode of the seed laser diode is electrically connected to an anode of the SOA or (ii) the light source comprises a common cathode, wherein a cathode of the seed laser diode is electrically connected to a cathode of the SOA.
OOI teaches a SOA-LD device is a three-terminal device ([0023-25, 29]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Amili such that the light source is configured as a three-terminal device, wherein (i) the light source comprises a common anode, wherein an anode of the seed laser diode is electrically connected to an anode of the SOA or (ii) the light source comprises a common cathode, wherein a cathode of the seed laser diode is electrically connected to a cathode of the SOA similar to OOI with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of helping simplify electrical connections in an integrated device.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Amili US 20210356588 A1 in view of Connolly US 20140072002 A1, Maywar (1998, “Low-power all-optical switching in active semiconductor chirped periodic structures”), Enderlein US 20210075191 A1, and Huang US 6567446 B1, and further in view of Sochave US 20080304826 A1.
Regarding Claim 18, Amili as modified above teaches the light source of Claim 1,
Amili does not explicitly teach wherein the light source includes a seed laser anode and a SOA anode, wherein the seed laser anode and the SOA anode are electrically isolated from one another; and a seed laser cathode and a SOA cathode, wherein the seed laser cathode and the SOA cathode are electrically isolated from one another.
Sochave teaches separate cathode and anode electrodes for laser cavity portion and SOA portions ([0014]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Amili such that the light source is configured as a four-terminal device comprising: a seed laser anode and a SOA anode, wherein the seed laser anode and the SOA anode are electrically isolated from one another; and a seed laser cathode and a SOA cathode, wherein the seed laser cathode and the SOA cathode are electrically isolated from one another similar to Sochava with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of helping electrically isolate components of the light source.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSEPH C FRITCHMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-5533. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00 am - 5:00 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Isam Alsomiri can be reached on 571-272-6970. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/J.C.F./Examiner, Art Unit 3645
/ISAM A ALSOMIRI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3645